The specific crimes you list are generally accomplished completely through communication, and this seems to be true in this case.

(I assume you meant to type 'extradition'). I'm not opposed to all instances of extradition. It seems perfectly reasonable that if someone commits a crime on US soil and flees, that their destination isn't a a safe haven and they be brought back to the jurisdiction they were in.

But that's not what happened here - the alleged crime was committed while on British soil, and I don't think he's ever visited the US. So "extraditing" him is actually exporting him to a completely foreign jurisdiction!

You originally said that Love was "merely" communicating. That is not the case. He was also committing a crime. To say that he was merely communicating is like saying that a Nigerian scammer was "merely sending an email", or that a double agent was "merely carrying some documents in a briefcase".

There is no legal precedent for limiting extradition to instances where the person being extradited has been physically present within the jurisdiction in question. If you hack into US government computers, it obviously makes sense for the US government to prosecute you.

By the way, in relation to your Holocaust denial example, you should look into the concept of "dual criminality".

It is "mere communication" in the sense that the whole action is communication, as opposed to eg also physically gaining access. The strict sense you're attempting for "mere" is nonsensical - every communication is for some ultimate purpose, and so can be described as that purpose. By a strict sense, asking Aunt Mildred for her cookie recipe wouldn't be "mere" communication, because you're also "making cookies".

The dual criminality thing isn't surprising because it's the crudest way of resolving the immediate conundrum. But this case precisely highlights its flaw - a person has only violated the law if they are found guilty in a court. Lauri has not been found guilty in a UK court, and therefore his actions have not been found illegal under UK law! Not to mention the vastly different punishments between the places (owing to societal differences that he never opted into). So either the principle needs to be extended to take these things into account, effectively making him stand trial in a UK court but perhaps with a US prosecutor, or another basic principle needs to be found.

Obviously there is no legal precedent, because if there were we wouldn't be having this conversation (it is the tendency for these systems to grow and erode rights). But I'm arguing that there should be - if someone is not physically present in a jurisdiction, how can they be said to have positively assented to that jurisdiction?

In the age of instant global communication, we either have one world jurisdiction (role currently being filled by USG) or we need to adopt logical demarcation points between different ones. I believe freedom of speech scaled up to nation states makes a lot of sense, for the same pragmatic reasons that it makes sense applied to individuals - a receiver of information is able to easily filter much garbage, and so the onus should be on them to prevent being affected by it.

If that's what you mean by 'mere' then it doesn't matter that he was 'merely' communicating. Clearly it's possible to be 'merely' communicating in your sense and yet also committing a crime. The Nigerian scammer is 'merely' sending emails and yet also committing fraud. The idea that freedom of speech somehow makes hacking, fraud, or other such crimes permissible is simply silly.

You're also misunderstanding how dual criminality works. The requirement is that the offence for which the individual is being extradited must be a crime in both countries. That requirement is met in Love's case but not in your hypothetical Holocaust denial case.

I don't see why people should have to assent to being under any given jurisdiction. I didn't assent to being under British jurisdiction, but since I live in Britain, I am. You seem to be suggesting that the physical location of a person should impose hard-and-fast restrictions on which country's laws they may be subject to, but see no reason why that should be so.

Reread my comment if you think I didn't understand dual criminality. What I'm pointing out is that the concept needs to be extended or augmented for the modern networked world.

Previously it was adequate because one basically had to visit a jurisdiction to commit a crime there. But taking a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_by_region, surely you wouldn't think it just for someone to be extradited from Iceland to Sudan for setting up a pornographic website.

I started off this thread explicitly saying that I reject the idea of communication creating a legal nexus. Borders and physical locations are a strong Schelling point for determining jurisdiction. I'm referencing free speech for its aspect of "what is said cannot hurt me", which is another Shelling point.

The Nigerian scammer is still committing fraud, but in Nigeria.

Your previous comment certainly appeared to misunderstand dual criminality since you thought it was relevant whether or not Lauri had been convicted of a crime in the UK. Clearly, however, that is not relevant to the satisfaction of the dual criminality requirement, which is the requirement that the offence for which the person is being extradited is also an offence in the country they're being extradited from.

With regard to your Iceland example, I doubt that Iceland and Sudan have an extradition treaty. If they do, I don't see in principle why someone who lived in Iceland but was involved in producing pornography in Sudan should not be extradited for it. In practice, however, the probable lack of an extradition treaty, and the probable flaws in the Sudanese justice system, would make it very unlikely that an Icelandic court would approve such a request.

I'm not really sure why you bring the example up. People don't in fact get extradited from Iceland to Sudan, so it's not as if it highlights a problem with the present system.

>The Nigerian scammer is still committing fraud, but in Nigeria.

I don't see how that is necessarily the case, if the victims are in other locations.

> Your previous comment certainly appeared to misunderstand dual criminality since you thought it was relevant whether or not Lauri had been convicted of a crime in the UK

An action can only be an offense if it illegal. And something can only be illegal if found so in a court of law. So, in abstract, dual criminality would require a proper trial in the extraditing country to determine if an offense was committed. The actual implementation takes shortcuts (because bureaucrats' goal is focused on achieving punishment), but this is an erosion of the legal system as I've been pointing out.

Surely you don't think that someone in a country with due process should be mechanically extradited to a country with no due process, but you're relying on a merciful extradition court to essentially try the case and provide due process before extradition.

> I don't see in principle why someone who lived in Iceland but was involved in producing pornography in Sudan should not be extradited for it

And distribution? eg just setting up a website that isn't not accessible from Sudan? I made this example because it shows how something can be technically "illegal" in two different places, yet have entirely different criminal procedures and punishments.

> I don't see how that is necessarily the case, if the victims are in other locations.

I have repeatedly stated that I'm rejecting the idea that communication can create a legal nexus. In this context since the fraudster has not left Nigeria, all his crimes are happening within Nigeria. This has been my main argument the whole time.

Rather than directly addressing my main point, you've only countered with how things currently are. Obviously if I thought the current state of affairs was worthwhile I would not be making this argument, so it's hardly a refutation.

>So, in abstract, dual criminality would require a proper trial in the extraditing country to determine if an offense was committed.

No, dual criminality requires that the person be extradited for (allegedly) doing something which is a crime in both countries. So for example, you can be extradited from the UK to the US on a murder charge because murder is a crime in both countries. Whether or not you have been found guilty of murder in the UK is irrelevant.

>Surely you don't think that someone in a country with due process should be mechanically extradited to a country with no due process,

That is why extradition treaties are generally only signed with countries which have due process. But all of these extradition requests have to go before a court; they're not "mechanical".

>I have repeatedly stated that I'm rejecting the idea that communication can create a legal nexus. In this context since the fraudster has not left Nigeria, all his crimes are happening within Nigeria.

This is just wrong on the face of it, and you've provided no supporting argument. If the fraudster is defrauding people in another country then his is potentially subject to the jurisdiction of that country.

>> I'm rejecting the idea that communication can create a legal nexus

> This is just wrong on the face of it, and you've provided no supporting argument

All of my comments have contained the supporting arguments, to which you've merely responded with how things currently are. This does not make for much of a refutation.

IMHO this is one of the problems with a common law legal system. It's all too easy to forget that its various principles and precedents are actually man made and not manifest immutable truths.

Your arguments were based on various hypothetical scenarios (extradition to Sudan on pornography charges, etc. etc.), which could not happen in the present system due to some combination of (i) the dual criminality requirement, (ii) the probable non-existence of the relevant extradition treaties, and (iii) the discretion that courts have to refuse extradition requests to countries which are unlikely to give a fair trial, or where disproportionate penalties are applied.